Jump to content
ekzxc

Provably UNFAIR?

Featured Comment

4 minutes ago, ekzxc said:

Yes we do know that this is just a beta version. But I don't think that using the beta version as an excuse is a good answer. Why release it to the public and let them risk their money if the game isn't ready yet?

I never said that the game is not fair, I just said that we are still in beta version and of course there can be some bugs. That's most likely just a visual bug, I cannot say anything for sure until our devs check this. You will have a more detailed answer soon. 

 

Thank you for your patience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Milan said:

I never said that the game is not fair, I just said that we are still in beta version and of course there can be some bugs. That's most likely just a visual bug, I cannot say anything for sure until our devs check this. You will have a more detailed answer soon. 

 

Thank you for your patience. 

I sure hope that it is a visual bug, that would be a huge relief to everyone :) Fingers crossed that it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DarkBlood069 said:

This is something very serious, I suggest closing this game right away before making any radical decisions... I could not care less if this is BETA, players are losing money to an un-provably fair system. Please close the mode and fix this bug. Lots of players will get very upset to be losing money on results that are not fair. Refunds should be in order with this bet and I can also confirm that this is not a fair bet.

thats the point now dark, we all lose money in a not fair way... so that means!  we lose money and play more, because we trust the bets and results, so we click more like junky's...

 

i can say serious that i didnt think about to chek my bets before i see this topic now..

 

and now we feel all the pain in a onfair beta.. its not playmoney devs.. its our real money that yu cant proof in a fair way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Milan said:

I never said that the game is not fair, I just said that we are still in beta version and of course there can be some bugs. That's most likely just a visual bug, I cannot say anything for sure until our devs check this. You will have a more detailed answer soon. 

 

Thank you for your patience. 

I didn't meant that way. But thanks for the response anyway. We'll be waiting for the detailed answer later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can check this third-party verifier, just choose HiLo game instead, because that site is not yet updated but cards are drawn in the same way. If you look it up, cards are in the same order as they are when you verify your bet on Stake. 

https://www.provablyfair.me/stake-verifier/

http://prntscr.com/mscmgw

 

We will give you a more detailed answer a bit later. Thank you for your patience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Milan said:

Hey all, thank you for posting that. We will check that further with our developers and we will let you guys know.

Note that this version of Stake is still in beta and that game is completely new.

Sorry friend maybe you will not agree with me but beta isnt excusing unfair game system.

Hopefully just a graphic problem

 

I dont understand noone noticed before releasing to public .

Or did they?

Oh shit even with 3rd party game its not fair. Okay thats serious probably not graphical :/

is.PNG

shall.PNG

Edited by DanielRandomDud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DanielRandomDud said:

Sorry friend maybe you will not agree with me but beta isnt excusing unfair game system.

Hopefully just a graphic problem

 

I dont understand noone noticed before releasing to public .

Or did they?

So what ?...Thats why new version is reffered as beta and its on users to test it or not.Beta version is usually released to find bugs and fix errors before releasing full version.

Now everyone will claim that they have lost money while playing on beta version lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can't really verify a video poker hand using the hilo game.

Video poker uses only one deck of cards and hi lo uses an infinite decks of cards.

The seed to bytes / bytes to numbers / numbers to cards should use a different logic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The video poker issue is a frotend thing, the provably fair modal is wrong. VideoPoker is similar to keno, mines, in a sense that we can't have any card twice, its a one deck game so we shuffle 52 numbers, rather then generating cards directly from the numbers we generate. Check out Mines or Keno to see how it works, then you’ll get the right cardss

Reply to that topic  with this if you like. It'ss definitely fair / correct / we did not cheat. We did however badly fuck up the FE side of  stuff & I'll have that fixed ASAP/

This is how the result should have been  displayed. The seeds used for that bet still calculate this. When we update the  FE all the VP bets will be correct as a result of their chosen seeds.

{ floats:
   [ 0.3177817009855062,
     0.0558704724535346,
     0.16472315811552107,
     0.3514788707252592,
     0.09221310564316809,
     0.8721017963252962,
     0.9215716680046171,
     0.5099366882350296,
     0.8884875245857984,
     0.37251838855445385 ],
  number: [ '6', '2', '4', '6', '3', 'K', 'K', '8', 'K', '6' ],
  shuffle: [ '6', '2', '4', '7', '3', 'K', 'A', '8', 'K', '7' ] }

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher–Yates_shuffle

 

This is the reply from our lead back end developer. Basically, we've made a big mistake with our front end (Visual) coding & will have it fixed ASAP. This doesn't actually change the fact the results are still correct from a fairness POV. They were using the wrong formula when being calculated for the modal is all. 

Please let me know if you have any further queries about this. I hope I can help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so we need to find out beta with bugs....

we need to lose money, to find the bugs.

We need to make a topic about this, so we can show the bugs...

whats wrong in this way?  i cant believe why the dev talk like'' ahhh yeah wel fuckng little problem need to fix him asap''

 

Did you really understand that this is not a fair way to test your new system?  

 

sorry and sorry and sorry we cant buy nothing with sorry....

@ the end we lose money (Real money) not virtual money

 

I hope this problem will solved soon ASAP!   because this is bad for the name ''stake''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, chipito said:

so we need to find out beta with bugs....

we need to lose money, to find the bugs.

We need to make a topic about this, so we can show the bugs...

whats wrong in this way?  i cant believe why the dev talk like'' ahhh yeah wel fuckng little problem need to fix him asap''

 

Did you really understand that this is not a fair way to test your new system?  

 

sorry and sorry and sorry we cant buy nothing with sorry....

@ the end we lose money (Real money) not virtual money

 

I hope this problem will solved soon ASAP!   because this is bad for the name ''stake''

To be fair, you are not losing any money. The result was calculated correctly. The fairness used on the Front End to display this was incorrect. If the results displayed on the modal were the actual results then the game would be unfair actually. Regardless of this issue, the result is still the same.

I'm not dismissing this issue though. It's a major bug on our side. But I hope people do not question our integrity as a result. This is not fairness related, it's actually visual, despite what it may look like currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I do not know about you but even if it has already postponed the problem, it is the same thing that I observe in the just 3 parris that I did like this one:

Screenshot_35.png.a2bea438aa4f5ff1ca7db1e39fc7585d.pngScreenshot_36.png.25b6a233131ab304cb6471f6cff28b0c.png

 

the SUPPORT must intervene on the problem, I you please ... who knows maybe it is also the case with the other games ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Edward said:

 

This is the reply from our lead back end developer. Basically, we've made a big mistake with our front end (Visual) coding & will have it fixed ASAP. This doesn't actually change the fact the results are still correct from a fairness POV. They were using the wrong formula when being calculated for the modal is all. 

Please let me know if you have any further queries about this. I hope I can help.

I'm sorry I didn't get to reply ASAP yesterday because I reached the maximum post count for the day.


I do believe that this was just a visual bug. But the point here is, the cards that we play is different from the cards in the provably fair system. So when we get dealt with cards that can't be verified on the provably fair, then there is no use on that provably fair. Take my photo as an example, in my on game initial hand I have :
6♦️ 2♠️ 4❤️ 7♦️ 3❤️
and on the provably fair initial hand I have :
6♦️ 2♠️ 4❤️ 6♠️ 3❤️
In on game hand, I didn't have a pair, but on the provably fair, I do have a pair of 6.
And the next 5 card to be drawn is K K 8 K 6
where if I knew I have that pair of six, I will hold it and re-deal the 3 other cards and would've won with a 2pair.
I'm not crying because I lose my 37doge, lol as if it worth that much. But what if the bet is bigger and the combination won't just be 2pair, but a royal flush or something that will give a very high payout. I'm pretty sure that I won't accept the visual bug explanation if that's the case.

I do hope you guys get my point here.

Edited by ekzxc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Edward said:

I'm not dismissing this issue though. It's a major bug on our side. But I hope people do not question our integrity as a result. This is not fairness related, it's actually visual, despite what it may look like currently.

I definitely hope it is visual, because otherwise the whole idea of Stake being "provably fair" gets thrown out the window...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, provablefair said:

i did not try, if its true game should be put down.

-bet refund if possible to all who bet 

-reward to spot that bug 

-fix it then only after put online again

 

as this is the way to be provablefair 

 

I'd love that 2nd thing to happen. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ekzxc I am sorry you experienced the emotional whirlwind of thinking you had an unfair bet. I have done some extensive work to verify this bet independently, and I was making my post, but my head was not working clearly yesterday and it took me longer than expected. But here is my work, for those who care to verify that this bet was indeed fair. There's a lot of quick-to-jump-the-gun reactions in this thread, but nobody did the actual independent work.. yes there's some info missing from Stake 2's provably fair page, it doesn't tell you the floats calculated as it used to, and I think this should please be added back. But here is the work, I will try to make this in an easy format..

1. First we need to calculate enough random bytes to generate (generate is the wrong word, PICK is the right word) 10 cards from a deck. And these cards are NOT replaced as they would be in Blackjack (which uses "infinite decks"), you cannot draw the same card twice in video poker. So we are trying to pick 10 cards from a deck.

To do this, we need enough random bytes to pick 10 cards. It's 4 bytes per card, so we need 40 random bytes.

We can generate 32 random bytes at a time, so we need to do this two times to get the required 40 bytes.

Here's how we do this, and you can do this independently from a HMAC_SHA256 calculator, like the one on this page (as I did): https://www.freeformatter.com/hmac-generator.html.

You need the secret key, and the message/string. The secret key is the server seed: f78124f19f4d9671912ada21ef167ddb5068ea21e8b06870898fe1bda2f5c37f

The message we are using is: 0000:117:0 and also 0000:117:1. We do this two times, here is a screenshot of doing the first one:

HMAC.thumb.png.646a0653a658ae21f916486352eb65cc.png

The computed HMAC for the first message is 515a243d0e4d86fc2a2b4c0159fa84ef179b4731df421036ebec1eef828b35f7

For the second string is e373eb1d5f5d5d783d4a79a748bdab1789e11b473096bba172d023478756df86

Splitting the first HMAC into 32 random bytes: 51,5a,24,3d,0e,4d,86,fc,2a,2b,4c,01,59,fa,84,ef,17,9b,47,31,df,42,10,36,eb,ec,1e,ef,82,8b,35,f7

Splitting the second HMAC into 32 random bytes (we don't need most of them anyway): e3,73,eb,1d,5f,5d,5d,78,3d,4a,79,a7,48,bd,ab,17,89,e1,1b,47,30,96,bb,a1,72,d0,23,47,87,56,df,86

Now we grab 4 random bytes at a time until we have enough to pick 10 cards:

{51,5a,24,3d},{0e,4d,86,fc},{2a,2b,4c,01},{59,fa,84,ef},{17,9b,47,31},{df,42,10,36},{eb,ec,1e,ef},{82,8b,35,f7} that's 8 from the first set, need 2 more cards:

{e3,73,eb,1d},{5f,5d,5d,78} that's 2 more cards so 10 in total.

Now we convert these hex numbers into decimal, you can do this with excel or libreoffice.

{81,90,36,61},{14,77,134,252},{42,43,76,1},{89,250,132,239},{23,155,71,49},{223,66,16,54},{235,236,30,239},{130,139,53,247}, and 2 more:
{227,115,235,29},{95,93,93,120}

So now we can get our 10 cards. We need to generate a float from each of these groups of 4 decimal numbers.

To generate the first float from {81,90,36,61}: 81/256 + 90/256^2 + 36/256^3 + 61/256^4 = 0.317781700985506.

The other floats are: 0.055870472453535, 0.164723158115521, 0.351478870725259, 0.092213105643168, 0.872101796325296, 0.921571668004617, 0.50993668823503, 0.888487524585798, 0.372518388554454. And you can see this matches the floats given by the developer.

Now we can actually pick the cards. We are starting with a deck of 52 cards which looks like this (the order is very important):
[♦2, ♥2, ♠2, ♣2, ♦3, ♥3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♥4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♦6, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♦7, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♣8 ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♥K, ♠K, ♣K, ♦A, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]

Each float gives us an index, but after we pick one card, there's one less card in the deck. So for the first picking, there's 52 cards.

The index = the first float * the number of cards in the deck = 0.317781700985506 * 52 = 16.524648451, but we truncate it = 16.

The first card (♦2 in this case) has an index of 0, the next card has an index of 1, so the card with index 16 is our first card = ♦6. Now we remove the ♦6 from the deck, so our new deck looks like this:

[♦2, ♥2, ♠2, ♣2, ♦3, ♥3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♥4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♦7, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♣8 ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♥K, ♠K, ♣K, ♦A, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]

And we get now the next index from the second float: int(0.055870472453535 * 51) = 2. We multiply by 51 because there's only 51 cards in the deck now.

Using this new index of 2, the card at this index is ♠2. We remove this from the deck, and repeat this 8 more times, shown below (expand to show):

Quote

New deck: [♦2, ♥2, ♣2, ♦3, ♥3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♥4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♦7, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♣8 ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♥K, ♠K, ♣K, ♦A, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]
3rd index: int(0.164723158115521 * 50) =  8, this card is ♥4.

New deck: [♦2, ♥2, ♣2, ♦3, ♥3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♦7, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♣8 ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♥K, ♠K, ♣K, ♦A, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]
4th index: int(0.351478870725259 * 49) =  17, this card is ♦7.

New deck: [♦2, ♥2, ♣2, ♦3, ♥3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♣8 ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♥K, ♠K, ♣K, ♦A, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]
5th index: int(0.092213105643168 * 48) =  4, this card is ♥3.

New deck: [♦2, ♥2, ♣2, ♦3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♣8 ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♥K, ♠K, ♣K, ♦A, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]
6th index: int(0.872101796325296 * 47) =  40, this card is ♥K.

New deck: [♦2, ♥2, ♣2, ♦3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♣8 ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♠K, ♣K, ♦A, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]
7th index: int(0.921571668004617 * 46) =  42, this card is ♦A.

New deck: [♦2, ♥2, ♣2, ♦3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♣8 ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♠K, ♣K, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]
8th index: int(0.50993668823503 * 45) =  22, this card is ♣8.

New deck: [♦2, ♥2, ♣2, ♦3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♠K, ♣K, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]
9th index: int(0.888487524585798 * 44) =  39, this card is ♠K.

New deck: [♦2, ♥2, ♣2, ♦3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♣K, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]
10th index: int(0.372518388554454 * 43) =  16, this card is ♥7.

We look at the 10 cards we got, in order, and they are: ♦6, ♠2, ♥4, ♦7, ♥3, ♥K, ♦A, ♣8, ♠K, ♥7. So this means your initial 5 cards would have been ♦6, ♠2, ♥4, ♦7, ♥3, and this matches your screenshot/bet id perfectly. The next 5 cards represent what you would have been offered: ♥K, ♦A, ♣8, ♠K, ♥7. There is no 6 here, that was a mistake of the verifier page. I hope this helps quell your concerns.

Edited by Pirnitho | made it easier to read

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Pirnitho said:

@ekzxc I am sorry you experienced the emotional whirlwind of thinking you had an unfair bet. I have done some extensive work to verify this bet independently, and I was making my post, but my head was not working clearly yesterday and it took me longer than expected. But here is my work, for those who care to verify that this bet was indeed fair. There's a lot of quick-to-jump-the-gun reactions in this thread, but nobody did the actual independent work.. yes there's some info missing from Stake 2's provably fair page, it doesn't tell you the floats calculated as it used to, and I think this should please be added back. But here is the work, I will try to make this in an easy format..

1. First we need to calculate enough random bytes to generate (generate is the wrong word, PICK is the right word) 10 cards from a deck. And these cards are NOT replaced as they would be in Blackjack (which uses "infinite decks"), you cannot draw the same card twice in video poker. So we are trying to pick 10 cards from a deck.

To do this, we need enough random bytes to pick 10 cards. It's 4 bytes per card, so we need 40 random bytes.

We can generate 32 random bytes at a time, so we need to do this two times to get the required 40 bytes.

Here's how we do this, and you can do this independently from a HMAC_SHA256 calculator, like the one on this page (as I did): https://www.freeformatter.com/hmac-generator.html.

You need the secret key, and the message/string. The secret key is the server seed: f78124f19f4d9671912ada21ef167ddb5068ea21e8b06870898fe1bda2f5c37f

The message we are using is: 0000:117:0 and also 0000:117:1. We do this two times, here is a screenshot of doing the first one:

HMAC.thumb.png.646a0653a658ae21f916486352eb65cc.png

The computed HMAC for the first message is 515a243d0e4d86fc2a2b4c0159fa84ef179b4731df421036ebec1eef828b35f7

For the second string is e373eb1d5f5d5d783d4a79a748bdab1789e11b473096bba172d023478756df86

Splitting the first HMAC into 32 random bytes: 51,5a,24,3d,0e,4d,86,fc,2a,2b,4c,01,59,fa,84,ef,17,9b,47,31,df,42,10,36,eb,ec,1e,ef,82,8b,35,f7

Splitting the second HMAC into 32 random bytes (we don't need most of them anyway): e3,73,eb,1d,5f,5d,5d,78,3d,4a,79,a7,48,bd,ab,17,89,e1,1b,47,30,96,bb,a1,72,d0,23,47,87,56,df,86

Now we grab 4 random bytes at a time until we have enough to pick 10 cards:

{51,5a,24,3d},{0e,4d,86,fc},{2a,2b,4c,01},{59,fa,84,ef},{17,9b,47,31},{df,42,10,36},{eb,ec,1e,ef},{82,8b,35,f7} that's 8 from the first set, need 2 more cards:

{e3,73,eb,1d},{5f,5d,5d,78} that's 2 more cards so 10 in total.

Now we convert these hex numbers into decimal, you can do this with excel or libreoffice.

{81,90,36,61},{14,77,134,252},{42,43,76,1},{89,250,132,239},{23,155,71,49},{223,66,16,54},{235,236,30,239},{130,139,53,247}, and 2 more:
{227,115,235,29},{95,93,93,120}

So now we can get our 10 cards. We need to generate a float from each of these groups of 4 decimal numbers.

To generate the first float from {81,90,36,61}: 81/256 + 90/256^2 + 36/256^3 + 61/256^4 = 0.317781700985506.

The other floats are: 0.055870472453535, 0.164723158115521, 0.351478870725259, 0.092213105643168, 0.872101796325296, 0.921571668004617, 0.50993668823503, 0.888487524585798, 0.372518388554454. And you can see this matches the floats given by the developer.

Now we can actually pick the cards. We are starting with a deck of 52 cards which looks like this (the order is very important):
[♦2, ♥2, ♠2, ♣2, ♦3, ♥3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♥4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♦6, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♦7, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♣8 ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♥K, ♠K, ♣K, ♦A, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]

Each float gives us an index, but after we pick one card, there's one less card in the deck. So for the first picking, there's 52 cards.

The index = the first float * the number of cards in the deck = 0.317781700985506 * 52 = 16.524648451, but we truncate it = 16.

The first card (♦2 in this case) has an index of 0, the next card has an index of 1, so the card with index 16 is our first card = ♦6. Now we remove the ♦6 from the deck, so our new deck looks like this:

[♦2, ♥2, ♠2, ♣2, ♦3, ♥3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♥4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♦7, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♣8 ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♥K, ♠K, ♣K, ♦A, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]

And we get now the next index from the second float: int(0.055870472453535 * 51) = 2. We multiply by 51 because there's only 51 cards in the deck now.

Using this new index of 2, the card at this index is ♠2. We remove this from the deck, and repeat this 8 more times, shown below (expand to show):


New deck: [♦2, ♥2, ♣2, ♦3, ♥3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♥4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♦7, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♣8 ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♥K, ♠K, ♣K, ♦A, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]
3rd index: int(0.164723158115521 * 50) =  8, this card is ♥4.

New deck: [♦2, ♥2, ♣2, ♦3, ♥3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♦7, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♣8 ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♥K, ♠K, ♣K, ♦A, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]
4th index: int(0.351478870725259 * 49) =  17, this card is ♦7.

New deck: [♦2, ♥2, ♣2, ♦3, ♥3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♣8 ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♥K, ♠K, ♣K, ♦A, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]
5th index: int(0.092213105643168 * 48) =  4, this card is ♥3.

New deck: [♦2, ♥2, ♣2, ♦3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♣8 ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♥K, ♠K, ♣K, ♦A, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]
6th index: int(0.872101796325296 * 47) =  40, this card is ♥K.

New deck: [♦2, ♥2, ♣2, ♦3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♣8 ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♠K, ♣K, ♦A, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]
7th index: int(0.921571668004617 * 46) =  42, this card is ♦A.

New deck: [♦2, ♥2, ♣2, ♦3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♣8 ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♠K, ♣K, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]
8th index: int(0.50993668823503 * 45) =  22, this card is ♣8.

New deck: [♦2, ♥2, ♣2, ♦3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♠K, ♣K, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]
9th index: int(0.888487524585798 * 44) =  39, this card is ♠K.

New deck: [♦2, ♥2, ♣2, ♦3, ♠3, ♣3, ♦4, ♠4, ♣4, ♦5, ♥5, ♠5, ♣5, ♥6, ♠6, ♣6, ♥7, ♠7, ♣7, ♦8, ♥8, ♠8, ♦9, ♥9, ♠9, ♣9, ♦10, ♥10, ♠10, ♣10, ♦J, ♥J, ♠J, ♣J, ♦Q, ♥Q, ♠Q, ♣Q, ♦K, ♣K, ♥A, ♠A, ♣A]
10th index: int(0.372518388554454 * 43) =  16, this card is ♥7.

We look at the 10 cards we got, in order, and they are: ♦6, ♠2, ♥4, ♦7, ♥3, ♥K, ♦A, ♣8, ♠K, ♥7. So this means your initial 5 cards would have been ♦6, ♠2, ♥4, ♦7, ♥3, and this matches your screenshot/bet id perfectly. The next 5 cards represent what you would have been offered: ♥K, ♦A, ♣8, ♠K, ♥7. There is no 6 here, that was a mistake of the verifier page. I hope this helps quell your concerns.

You did a very long research about this, I thank you for clarifying things to us and making it understandable. So I guess this was just a bug on the verifier design? But if that's the case, why is that some bets on the verifier are correct? Shouldn't it be wrong for the other bets also? Since the bug was on the design? I'm sorry if I have so many question to ask, I just suddenly got curious when you explained it all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ekzxc said:

You did a very long research about this, I thank you for clarifying things to us and making it understandable. So I guess this was just a bug on the verifier design? But if that's the case, why is that some bets on the verifier are correct? Shouldn't it be wrong for the other bets also? Since the bug was on the design? I'm sorry if I have so many question to ask, I just suddenly got curious when you explained it all

It's a pleasure. Please show me specifically which bets are correct on the verifier, you can PM me if you want, or just write it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting indeed, don’t think it’s rigged or anything, has to be a bug, maybe also contact live support so they can refund you hopefully 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O yah, you're right. All of my video poker bets have errors. Just didn't seem to notice the little errors there. Thanks for the clarification for this, really appreciate it.

Edited by ekzxc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ekzxc said:

O yah, you're right. All of my video poker bets have errors. Just didn't seem to notice the little errors there. Thanks for the clarification for this, really appreciate it.

I'd just finished manually checking that bet id which you edited, indeed, it was much harder to see (and it looked fine to me too at first glance) because most of the cards were correct, just some of the suits were wrong. Welcome again 😄.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×